What is the least important component (poll)?

[Lindsayt]

What is the least important component, generally speaking, in terms of the overall sound quality of a hi-fi system?

I've not included cables nor supports, nor stands as I'd class them as ancilliaries. Or in the case of turntable support and speaker stands I'd class them as, sort of, integral with the turntable or speakers. And polls are limited to 10 options anyway and there are 9 in this one already.

[terrybooth]

Well, this will cause a lot of head-scratching! You could argue that they are all important but it's the synergy of the components that really makes the sound quality.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Your right, I spent about 5 mins head scratching, then decided I can't answer it.

[_D_S_J_R_]

I chose the digital source, as you can get perfectly passable results from a wall-wart supplied £5 DAC these days, as long as the interconnect is half decent. I had a hilarious (to me) session or two from my cheapo DAC, wired via TIS to the system. It was amazingly good, if not as expansive or tidy as the main DAC I use, which itself is very old if fine tuned...

[Fretless]

I chose the digital source, as you can get perfectly passable results from a wall-wart supplied £5 DAC these days, as long as the interconnect is half decent. I had a hilarious (to me) session or two from my cheapo DAC, wired via TIS to the system. It was amazingly good, if not as expansive or tidy as the main DAC I use, which itself is very old if fine tuned...

Sorry Dave, but I can't agree with you there. A 'good' digital source will allow a 'budget' installation to be very revealing and musical..
I voted for crossover.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Crossover as the most important least important, get rid of it.

You see this is why the wording of the poll is ambiguous and difficult to answer.

[diggerrum]

The polled question is not easy to understand. Does it mean which item contributes most to the best sound quality ? Please re-state the question in a less ambiguous way, Lindsayt.

[Fretless]

Must be quite a lot of analogue fans around. Tonearms are regarded as more important than digital sources.

[_D_S_J_R_]

I chose the digital source, as you can get perfectly passable results from a wall-wart supplied £5 DAC these days, as long as the interconnect is half decent. I had a hilarious (to me) session or two from my cheapo DAC, wired via TIS to the system. It was amazingly good, if not as expansive or tidy as the main DAC I use, which itself is very old if fine tuned...

Sorry Dave, but I can't agree with you there. A 'good' digital source will allow a 'budget' installation to be very revealing and musical..
I voted for crossover.

My argument was that all modern digital sources are 'good.' Some cheap digital gear is so good these days and there's some fine inexpensive amps and CD players out there in my opinion and some experience. All things vinyl needs good engineering which costs more. What do you get from a £1000 DAC that that little £120 one discussed here can't do? Power supply? casework and switchgear, Intellectual profit, which seems to be the most important of all in electronic gear? Maybe I'm spoiled with the digital stuff I have - the Micro Seiki was the first CD player I ever heard that could 'do' a proper 3-D walk-in soundstage back in 1989 and it comfortably bettered the donor Philips/Marantz chassis it's based on. the QED DAC was thick toned and murky until the twin supply mod came along (plus a couple of cost-cutting reversals inside, which made no audible difference of note to me).


Tonearms are nasty, resonant things with varying effective masses. Yes, I would say they're more important than well implemented MODERN digital sources, but then, I've got a passable musical noise out of my (mains attenuated to cut down motor noise) Garrard AP76 with AT120E this weekend for a giggle - musical noise being the thing - and I'm transported back to 1973 and the first half-decent deck I bought with my own earned holiday money....

[Fretless]

Looks like we're back to the old chestnut: analogue vs digital.

I find this poll to be strangely arranged with 'digital sources' lumped together and four separate parts of a TT setup apart.

A clearer / fairer split would be just 'Analogue source' vs 'Digital source'
or separate: Network player, CD player, DAC, computer.

All of my primary sources are digital and it is by far the most important part of my main system and defines the sound. With a pretty expensive DAC at its' heart - and that DAC is worth the extra over less expensive ones that I also have running.

Oh yes - and I do have a TT and am still happy if it just plays LP's